SQL Server Reviews

It's a normal DMS, so it can be used everywhere you want to use any RDBMS or relational database. It's for normal transactions.

SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms.

I've been using SQL Server for the last six months. Earlier we used DB2, but now we use this one.

SQL Server's performance is fine.

Microsoft support is fine.

We don't deal with the setup because we are developers. The system or admin team does all those things. So I don't have any idea.

I rate SQL Server eight out of 10. We haven't had any issues, but it depends on the use case. So I would recommend it depending on your use case.

We find the Microsoft SQL Server affordable compared to its real competitors. 

We find it easy to manage. 

It offers a very robust infrastructure for us.

The solution is easy to set up.

We have found the stability to be good.

We've had a good experience with technical support. They are helpful.

We may use different levels of SQL Server when it comes to licensing. We have some Enterprise and some Standard services. They can improve the recovery processes of the replication or disaster recovery scenarios for the lower-tiered version, such as the Standard server.

While we have many options in Enterprise, it's expensive for most companies.

The configuration process can be a little complex. 

Technical support can take a while to respond in Turkey.

The solution may be better with some integration with some factory cloud software. With the standard version, the lodgement process is never enough. We are replicating near real-time to make recovery easy and to make all the RPO targets as expected. 

You cannot recover SQL Servers, especially for big financial companies like ours. It's not easy to erect SQL Servers on any other site, and with an acceptable data loss in the foundations.

Personally, I have used the solution for about 15 years at this point. It's well over a decade. I've used it for a while. 

The stability has been great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable. 

The Microsoft team never responds fast in Turkey. I cannot say they are fast. Unless you have some Enterprise agreement, they're not quick. However, I find that when I deal with the same technician a few times, they are quite good and very helpful. They are very capable. They know what they are talking about. 

We also use Oracle Servers. 

The initial implementation is easy and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult to set up.

However, it's not just the server we have to set up. We have a cluster environment. Mostly it's just, click, click, click and you are done, however, the configuration process is a bit more difficult. Adjusting performance levels, in particular, can be a real challenge.

The enterprise version of the solution is very expensive and most companies would likely find that they wouldn't be able to afford it. 

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution, however, it will only be effective if the company hires an effective administrator. While there are default settings, you will likely need to configure quite a bit and connect most of your hardware in the correct way. To be effective, it really needs to be tuned by a professional. 

Our primary use case is for SQL Server is data warehousing and business intelligence.

This solution acts as the backbone of most IT services. It is essential for us to use it.

I have found the whole solution with all its features wonderful.

If this solution could provide an automatic indexing feature it would be very useful.

In the next release, there could be better integration with Power BI or other tools.

I have been using this solution for approximately 20 years.

The solution is stable. There has been a few bugs but all solutions have them at one time or another.

There are scalability limitations and this is why we are evaluating cloud alternatives. 

I rate the scalability of SQL Server a four out of five.

We provide support for our clients but if we need support we receive it quickly because we are prime customers.

We are currently evaluating cloud options.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to thoroughly investigate if this is the right tool for their use case.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for data storage. We use it for its data warehouse, BI services, and AI.

If you compare the SQL Server with the block storage it's stable and it's working. 

The product has been on the market for over 25 or 30 years. It's an extremely mature solution.

The solution is pretty scalable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, depending on your requirements.

The solution is very expensive. 

Technical support could be faster.

I've been using the solution for many years. It's been a while. It's likely been over ten years or so - a decade or more.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

Three people are using the solution in our organization.

We've used technical support in the past. However, it's not a very fast support system. For the new Office 365, it's better. This solution still needs to work on support.

For a specific task, we are using this solution. However, for some other tasks, we're using MongoDB, MariaDB, Oracle, or something else. It depends on the task and the solution and the requirements.

The installation is not overly complex or difficult for the most part. The initial setup's level of straightforwardness, however, depends. If you only need an SQL Server, it's easy. If you need a cluster, it's more difficult. If you need a great cluster all over the world, it's more difficult.

I handled the installation myself. I did not need the help of an integrator or consultant.

The solution is expensive. The pricing is different and not really standardized. If you're using it on Azure you pay on your workloads. If you have a separate dedicated instance, you pay for the course. It's different, according to the situation, however, in either case, it's expensive.

We are customers and end-users.

We are using the 2014 and 2019 versions of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations and users. However, if it will work for a company, or if it will work for them in an ideal manner depends on the requirements you have to fulfill as an organization. For example, race cars may be good cars, and great products, however, it's for a specific task. For other tasks, it may not be useful.

I general, I'm quite satisfied with the solution and it does what I need it to do. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

It can be used for different things such as data warehousing and online transactional processing (OLTP). This is a product that I have never used in production, however.

The most valuable feature is that it is easy to use and you don't have to do a lot of configuration. For example, there is no installation.

When you want to insert data, it is easy to do. For example, if I want to test something then I log into my GitHub account, download what I want, and then upload it to the SQL server.

The integration with other products like SQL Developer is really good. Connecting it to Visual Studio is also quite good.

More things in SQL Server need to be automated. We need to do a lot of things, especially on the cloud, and Oracle has better automation for handling these kinds of tasks. Automation is the key, these days.

I have been using SQL Server for a couple of months.

With respect to scalability, I can say that the cloud version is scalable. I don't have much to say about how an on-premises deployment scales. However, in general, both Oracle and Microsoft products scale really well.

Technical support is responsive and quite good.

I also have experience with Oracle Database. When I compared pricing between the two products, I found that Microsoft was more expensive.

There is no installation. Everything is done by Microsoft and all you have to do is deploy it. The process takes less than five minutes.

I have done the installation many times by myself.

As a cloud-based product, there are no special resources required for maintenance. Once you deploy it, you just want to make sure that the data is displayed or presented in the way that you want it. Most of the technical work is handled by Microsoft.

There is a charge for this product if you are using it in production. For development, there is no cost. The pricing from Microsoft is quite expensive compared to Oracle.

In summary, this is a good product, I plan to continue using it, and I definitely recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use SQL Server to optimize SQL queries and find the estimated cost of my queries. 

I also use it to fine tune my procedures and functions.

• SQL Server has maintained my database problem in an arranged manner.
• SQL Server Profiler makes finding and debugging easy.
• Support for third-party tools, like SQL Search.

• SQL Server Profiler: Know exactly which procedures and functions are being called and how much read and write they are taking.
• Tuning Advisor: It suggests where to add indexes and from where to remove them. It works like an adviser.
• Storage capability
• Debugger: The debugger tool can execute code step-by-step.

• Third-party services from Redgate should be built-in to it, like SQL Search.
• Debugging from the debugger tool functionality should be enhanced.
  

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

It is good.

I have been using SQL Server from the start.

It was straightforward.

In-house.

It is good.

The setup cost is high, but it will return every penny.

The ability to organize and structure our data in order to extract and provide it to various products and systems within our organization. It is widely used and has great online support from many third-party sites.

We're able to easily upscale previous systems to provide an efficient interface for our internal clients to do their jobs effectively.

Learning SQL could be easier. Some inbuilt tools to enable faster query writing would be very useful.

I have used various versions for at least 25 years, on and off.

No, none.

When upsizing, some tools do not do a very good job of scaling efficiently and lots of after tweaks need to be made.

From Microsoft -- poor/very expensive, but there are many other helpful resources out there.

Used MS Access, but data ports became too large for it to support, so we needed a product to take us to the next level as our data ports grew.

A lot of initial reading was required to carefully manage the process of setting everything up correctly.

Not my area.

No, others evaluated.

Do your homework first and be prepared for a tough learning curve.

• Business intelligence platform
• Analysis services (multidimensional and tabular)
• Relational database features
• Data extraction and transformation (integration services)

It provides the ability to create an end-to-end automated BI platform through data management and provisioning, transformation and publication.

Data platform development process improvement: Integrating the features of Visual Studio Team Foundation Server data projects for SQL Server development. Allows for smooth operation between development environments in conjunction with an agile process to release database changes.

Hosting multidimensional OLAP instances in conjunction with Tabular, rather than the either/or installation.

OLAP multidimensional ongoing maintenance - automated partitioning or interface for streamlining the mechanism within the cube and data layers.

Integration Services: There is a great deal of room for improvement here in that thepackages are the least extensible part of the platform. Even with the feature ofplatform variables, since these are not easily managed and deployed. Our testers have had a great deal of difficulty swapping environments, particularly where the connection information changes (underlying database name, for example). Changing servers with identical database names is less problematic.

I've used it since its release in 2012 until now.

No issues encountered.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

There were some avoidable issues, primarily due to a lack of scaling in our own design.

Online information for SQL Server is extensive.

I did not have the need to contact technical support for any reason.

Open Source database and OLAP solution was found to lack stability, and required the installation of many moving parts in order to have a complete stack. These services don't always work together well, and the various online communities would frequently blame the other for issues.

It's straightforward to install a new instance, but more complex if new features are added to an existing instance. Deployment of SQL code is efficient through Visual Studio database project development methodologies.

I have used both in-house, and vendor teams for implementation, both with very high levels of expertise into different aspects of database development.

It's very high as the data platform is business-critical.

I don’t concentrate on this issue, but rather the necessary features and the version required.

No other oprions were evaluated.

Make sure that you have an experienced database administrator to implement the infrastructure of the solution.